Alcohol Soaking Wet Wood

Fred,

I have been using the alcohol soaking method for over a year and I agree with your conclusions. But I'd like to ask a question: In the first weight shown, is that after soaking or before?

While I haven't done side-by-side tests I do keep track of the weight loss. I usually weigh my bowls before soaking, then immediately after soaking and finally every twenty-four hours. I find the weight increases significantly after soaking. (I usually soak them for twenty-four hours.) I would suggest that you do the same if you intend to continue evaluating this method.

I think I said in an earlier post that I had only lost one bowl since using this method and I think that bowl was in pretty bad shape even before soaking.

Harry

Harry,

The first weight was after soaking. That may be why it weighed more than the unsoaked bowl to begin with. I normally soak the bowls for 24 hours, but Dave Smith said that two hours is enough, so that was what I used for this test since it was fresh new alcohol.

Fred Holder

Didn't "lambast" you in the other thread but I can't say I am at all surprised by your results. I shall continue to merely consume all alcohol that enters my premises........

.......

Fred, even using a split of identical wood, on a small sample size (2), the math suggests that it's unproven, i.e. it is a statistical dead-heat.

Fred, Have you sanded and finished them yet? Is there any difference that you can feel in how the wood sands? robo hippy

No, I haven't finish turned them. If there is a difference in the turning and sanding, I'll report that back in a few days.

Fred Holder

I didn't know that you were going to return them. At 1/2 inch thick (or thin) I would sand them out as is, but then again, I like the warped shapes. As far as the weight differences, and drying, I would expect the DNA bowl to dry faster at first because alcohol evaporates faster than water. I would also expect the 10 gram difference is also because of the alcohol. I am waiting for some fresh Madrone to run some teste of my own. robo hippy

Fred, the info is relevant and interesting - hardly deserving of lambasting. If something confirms then hte effort was still worthwhile and your report appreciated. Like Robo, be interesting to see if there's any difference in the finishing.

TomNie

Fred,

Great job. This kind of work is very important. Someone earlier suggested that unless you were to use a statistically valid sample you couldn't draw any conclusions. Not true. Statistics is the last, if even necessssary, step in a scientific proof. Observation, evaluation, analysis, and preliminary experiments are the first steps.

Regardless of what Dave Smith claims I doubt (though I surely could be wrong) that even the purest alcohol would reach a saturation equilibrium in 2 hours. If it didn't that might explain the small difference. I wish I could think of some way to hold the control unchanged while soaking the experimental piece for a week. If I can I think of a reasonable method I will repeat this with something like apple or lilac that splits like crazy. I will post if I do.

Thanks for your effort. Larry

Do what the lumber yards do, keep the log soaking in water.

Dan

Hello Tom,

The alcohol soaked piece seemed to turn and sand better. Perhaps it was because it was less distorted. Incidentally, when both bowls were turned and finished, they wound up weighing exactly the same. I violated my test when applying finish. I used walnut oil on the soaked bowl and Kerf's Wood Creme on the unsoaked bowl. I liked the looks of the walnut oil finish although it was darker. The wax finish did not darken the wood.

Fred Holder

Screw those guys, Fred. Really. You are making a good effort here, and taking the time to share your data. You don't have to answer to anyone.

On a lighter note, the guys over at WoodCentral that SWEAR by the alcohol soak, all data, inconclusive testing, scientific proof, etc, all be damned soak their projects about 12 hours. The guys that do that regularly love their technique and swear by it.

The guys that use and like the method that I have conversed with on the subject tell me that you have to make some concessions on how well it works on different woods, which to me would make sense. Most woods have similar cell structure, but different chemical makeup and cell shape and arrangment. So with that in mind, it would also make sense that not all woods would work, or work well. Also, I have always wondered about how different the outcomes would be on a tree that was cut at a certain time of year, which would affect the amount of water in the log.

Keep up the good work. I am looking forward to you future testing.

Robert

First is to research the background material. In this case his desired outcome would have had to violate known laws of science and good sense analysis. Since the result of a background search was unacceptable, it, as with the validation obtained by experiment, has been disregarded. Oh well, even the half loaf under attempted salvage will disappear with numbers. Could have drawn some valid conclusions from a sample size of two if the controls had been of similar grain pattern as suggested.

Saturation? Best you could hope for is a uniform mixture. Unless you're prepared to withdraw the dilute portion, replace with fresh, and do this a few times, you'll never do much at enrichment over times measured in days or weeks. That's the wonderful thing about letting the air do the dilution, it carries out the trash and replenishes itself.

I wish I could think of some way to hold the control

Albeit unnecessary. The outcome was in every way predictable and predicted. Even the denial and attempt to appear the victim. Not to mention posts like this.

Might I suggest you learn something about sample size and variation. The variation is close enough, given the sample size, that this test doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Might I suggest that you learn something about the scientific method?

At the risk of being thought a pompous ass, I'll suggest that arguments similar to this have been going on since before Wally and I were born and no doubt, will continue. :)

Theory vs observation: empiricism vs rationalism. blah! blah! blah! Like a basketball game the lead changes and the 'scientific method' now has the lead. Much of our 'real world' scientific knowledge is in fact repetition of what we learned from our teachers and what they learned from theirs. We didn't induce or deduce anything for ourselves, but we sure hold on to our 'current truths' tightly.

What I am saying badly is that no matter how strong the scientific evidence that alcohol soaking works or doesn't work, it will remain a question. No matter how scientific or unscientific our personal position is about drying wood, as in another emotionally charged situation we may as well "relax and enjoy it". :)

I'm way OT to make a point: Newton was scientifically & universally correct til it turned out that he wasn't. But his laws still work, for most of us anyway. Everybody knew it was scientifically impossible for a bacterium to cause a stomach ulcer ...until it did. :)

Turn to Safety, Arch Fortiter

One of the backlashes from advertising hype that talks about 'this laundry soap is scientifically proven to..." is that people then believe science proves anything whatsoever. As a physicist once told me, "Science doesn't, can't prove anything. All it can do is fail to disprove something." Caveat Emptor! Dan

Hi Dan, You had to go & mention soap. :) A bar of ivory soap & a cork between the bed sheets calms my restless legs and quiets my leg cramps. Some things demand proof, some rely on faith alone, others have only hope. My soap therapy requires all or none of the above. I know it's true because I read about it in the paper. Seriously, it works for me (no 'G' this time) and it might or might not for some of you.

It doesn't much matter to me what Fred proves or fails to. It worked for him (or it did 'til he took up science). :) I thank him for sharing his experiences with enough common sense and enthusiasm that I want to try to duplicate it. That's sort of like the sainted scientific method, isn't it? What does all this have to do with alcohol soaking wet wood? Answer: Not much.

Turn to Safety, Arch Fortiter